The court emphasized the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in cases involving allegations of criminal conduct, highlighting the need for corroborating evidence and the impact of inconsistencies on the credibility of the petitioner's claims.

Mukta Gupta, J.

Crl. M.A. 14597 of 2016

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

Crl. M.A. 14598 of 2016

For the reasons stated in the application 87 days delay in refilling the revision petition is condoned.

Application is disposed of.

Crl. Rev. P. 623 of 2016

1. On the complaint of the petitioner FIR No. 208/2011 under Section 354 IPC was lodged at PS Sunlight Colony.

2. The learned Trial Court vide the judgment dated 12th March, 2015 acquitted the respondent No.2 of the charge. The said judgment was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was also dismissed vide the impugned Judgment dated 5th February, 2016. Hence the present petition.

3. The petitioner who appeared as PW-3 in her evidence recorded before the Court in her examination-in-chief deposed that she was engaged in the profession of insurance and investment consultancy and marketing business. On 19th June, 2011 at about 4.00 or 5.00 PM when she was present at her residence-cum-office as she received a call from one Rajnish who stated that he wanted to get the insurance of the vehicle of his wife renewed. Though the appointment with Rajnish was fixed at 4.30 PM however he came to her house at about 4.05 PM. The respondent No.2 entered her house and she made him sit on the sofa and shut the main door. She offered him a glass of water, which he refused. The respondent No.2 showed her the registration certificate and blank cheque for insurance which she inspected and stated that she would compute the amount payable on her computer. As she did not have a pen, she got up from her chair to get a pen from her office when the respondent No.2 grabbed her and pushed her into her bedroom. According to the petitioner she pleaded asking him to release her, however he caught hold of both her hands with full force and undressed her forcibly and touched her private parts. As soon as the grip of respondent No.2 eased, she kicked him, rushed into the bathroom and locked herself. Though he kept knocking the door but she did not come out and finally he left and she lodged the complaint.

4. The learned Trial Court noted that the petitioner refused to undergo medical examination. Thus an inference can be drawn that there was no injury on her body. It also noted that as per the petitioner she was showing resistance and if the respondent No.2 had caught hold of her and undressed her she would have suffered at least some visible bruises on her wrist as a necessary consequence of the resistance of holding her wrist tightly. Further the petitioner shouted for no help at any point of time. Though she stated that she locked herself in bathroom for 1 hour 45 minutes, however despite a small window being there she sought no help. Even after coming out of the bathroom she did not report the incident immediately and called her friends etc. No friend to whom this information was given was cited as a witness. The petitioner did not name the friend to whom she called after the incident nor placed on record her call details. Further her conduct of sending Policy renewal SMS on the mobile phone of the respondent No.2 even after the alleged incident raises serious suspicion about the prosecution case, hence the respondent No.2 was acquitted.

5. The learned ASJ vide the impugned judgment from the cross-examination of the petitioner noted in Paras 8 – 14 as under:-

“8. She was cross-examined at length. The following notable points emerge from her cross-examination:

(i) She was living alone as she was unmarried and her parents were living in the home town. In her examination she stated that the accused had visited her 4-6 times earlier. He had invested in 8 mutual funds, one life insurance policy and 1 KYC for Mutual fund with her. He had also given her two further references.

(ii) The accused reached her house at about 4.05 PM and she locked herself in the bathroom at about 4.15 PM and came out at about 6.15 PM i.e. stayed inside the bathroom fo